zimfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Invader ZIM Wiki Policies/Archive 1
Sockpuppetry, Vandalism, Spam, curse words These are rather basic rules. The top 4 ban reasons on a wiki: SVSC S:Sockpuppetry V:Vandalism S:Spam C:Curse Words. Sockpuppetry You know, when someone makes another account, usually after a ban. Since they'll usually make a sockpuppet account after a long period ban, like 3 months, there usually is a no tolerance thing, so if that happens, the wiki will ban their IP for a indefinite amount of time. I say we do that. Votes: #I made this, so I obviously agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #Definetly 22:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC) Vandalism Another thing you need to know. A vandal will destroy pages with no intent. And if you let him run amok, the wiki will eventually be in ruins. Usually the punishments are harsh, where it's no warning, they go flat out with a 6 month ban, and if they do it again, they'll be banned forever. but we shouldn't be as harsh. I say First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth Time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #I agree with this. Vandalism must NOT be tolerated. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:16, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Spam One of the biggest problems on a wiki. SPAM. 'A user will do something thats doesnt feature as vandalism, but is still just as bad. They won't remove things: They'll ADD things. Things such as "WDAWEWHREWQRKQNRQWRNKQW" "SPAM!" That kinda of things. Usually the punishments aren't as harsh as a vandal, but I say they deserve the same amount of punishment as a vandal. First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban. Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. # I think that we shouldn't go from "Warning" to "One Week"; we should have a "1 Day" banning period in between the two. It makes more sense, and isn't as draconian. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC) # No, just... NO. I mean, a 1 day ban? That's just TOO soft. We can't show editors we can be stepped on! We can't always be happy go lucky. I think 1 week is good. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with ZimFan. Curse Words The last major thing: CURSE WORDS. Someone will go in a fit of rage and curse quite a bit. The punishments will start off with a 6 hour long ban period, like a "Cool down" period. And every time after the fourth time, it will always be a three day ban. I think we should follow that. First Time: 6 hours Second Time: 3 days Third Time: 1 week Every Time after fourth time: 3 weeks. Votes: #I made this, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #I'm mot very sure about this one, the bans are a bit short. If they only get six hours, they'll just come back later. I suggest that the first ban last three days, the second a week, and a two week ban if they do it again. If the message is just extremely offensive, such as said user insulting another person here, being racist, etc, and then ignoring our warnings, they should warrant 6 month ban or longer. #Actually, 3 days is a little long for first timers. I say 1 day first time, 3 days second time, 1 week third time. And if they really are extremely offensive, 1 month. That's a little harsh though blossom, half a year. Although if they do ignore our warnings, yeah, maybe a rather long ban is in order. But still, not SIX months. 3 months could do. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:34, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Also, we should ''really give the offender two warnings before whipping out the banhammer. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #TOO SOFT! 1 warnings enough. If they don't adhere, we don't try the warning sequence again, we go straight to a ban. No matter what, a warnings a warning, where it gives you your one and ONLY chance before real consquences. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #To blossom though, I though it over, and I realized I DID say 6 hours is a cool down time. So that should be our first resort. But if they DO come back and do it again, we can do a 3 day thing. Let me revise it. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:22, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::Too soft? Banning should NEVER, EVER be our first resort. We must always give them at least ONE warning, regardless of the law broken.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 22:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::Sorry Doctor, but, they should at least know of wikia rules, and no cursing is one of them, Heck, it's not acceptable really anywhere. So yeah, banning should be our first resort. ::::::And if they are unaware of our rules? I've been in that position a few times before, and I was banned for six hours because I made what I thought were good-faith edits. Sometimes different Wikis have different policies, and we can't just outright BAN someone 'cos they acted on the assumption that this Wiki has the same rules as another they've previously contributed. I simply won't stand for that. Except in cases of obvious and intentional spam or vandalism, we MUST institute the one-warning system first before a ban. ::::::DOCTOR. Cursing isn't ok anywhere, and this wiki's gonna be different. Warnings for cursing were gave out by peoples parents when they swore in public. We don't need to repeat it. So, there should be NO warning for cursing. At all. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:20, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::On the contrary, some legitimate Wikis I know of actually don't ban people for swearing; I'm not saying we should go to that extreme either, but we certainly shouldn't ban 'em right off the bat for saying a minor swear word on Chat. Now, if someone drops the f-bomb, we should ban 'em immediately, but if they just say something like "What the h...", that does NOT merit a ban. Besides, not all people's parents wash out their children's mouths with soap every time they say "crap." So no, we must always, always, ALWAYS give them warning. And I will not rest until that is the case. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:33, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Doctor, a curse word is a curse word, no matter what. Whether it's F***, C***, or even H**L. Besides, most the times it's in a fit of rage, so a day is a cool down. If it's a warning, GUESS WHAT DOCTOR? They'll just get pissed and curse, and just go to a ban. So we should remove the middle man! So, I will not rest until we agree there should be no warning. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:39, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Words like "damn" or "crap" are fine with me, as long as they don't use it on the wiki excessively. The F, B, and a few other swears are what merit a ban in my book, but they should warrant a ban that lasts a day as a penalty for first offense. A day's not that long. ::::::::::Not even that really. Because remember, this isn't inhabited by teenagers. People under 13 can view this. And what will the parents say? They won't let them on here, even with those things. Not ALL parents are ok with swears, sadly. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:50, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Hmm, I see you point with that. So, no swearing of any kind on talk pages, articles and whatnot. :::::::::::Yeah, and do you agree with the no warning thing? (Sorry to drag you into this, but I don't feel a warnings necessary, but I also don't want me and doctor to end up all made at each other.) Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:02, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::That is were the whole reprimand thing comes in: by telling them off and threatening to ban them the second time, we make it VERY clear to everyone that swearing is NOT TOLERATED. We can make sure they don't do it again simply by THREATENING them with a ban. If we ARE stupid enough to ban them right off the bat, we will be all the more likely to spark resentment from the user, and all the LESS likely to come back here after their ban is up. Sorry, ZimFan, but your idea is unnecessarily brutal and - in the end - will do more harm than good. ::::::::::You know what doctor? Let's settle this in chat. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:35, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::I see both your points, but I am neutral with the ban thing. ::::::::::::Well, it appears we are at an impasse. As such, I will propose a compromise: We implement your "no warning" idea ONLY when it comes to swearing or vandalism on articles or the talk pages thereof (after all, why would you need to swear on articles?); however, we implement my idea when it comes to the Chat room and minor, non-malicious instances on User Talk Pages. Sound good? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:35, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Just come on the chat, because this forum talkpage like thing isn't working. ::::::::::::Doctor, I don't really think warnings will work. Even if we compromise, your half is minor things on chat and talk pages. Well, that's still bad enough! Some 13+ CANNOT swear or anything. And if their parents noticed, we might have just lost a editor! And non editors or users CAN see talk pages, and some nonusers are under 13. So that's why we shouldn't tolerate a user for swearing. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:49, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::I actually like the way the forum works, since it can be as long as you wish for it to be and you can keep track of the discussion. In chat, it's hard to get everyone together as easy as this can, since we all live in different time zones. However, this argument is getting out of hand and we'll have to make a bold decision. If we end up finding that one way doesn't work, we can always change it so that it does. :::::::::::She's right. So how 'bout this: We initially implement my "strict warning" policy, and if that doesn't work, THEN we implement your strategy. I can't see why you think my plan would have such a negative effect, though: EVERY other major Wiki I know uses TWO warnings, and they're doing quite well. Better than we are, in fact. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 10:22, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't like the idea. I've been on wikis who did that thing before, and when it's over, there's a big fight and demotion and banning. Let's just settle this here. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 11:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Um, you say it ends in "demotion and banning." That makes no sense, because you are proposing that we actively DO these very things from the start, without giving the users a second chance. And, since what you are proposing will likely incite anger and resentment from the banees, they inevitably WILL start one of the "big fights" that you are attempting to avoid with your "shoot first, ask questions later" idea. It's what we call a fallacy. Let's face it: If you don't like my idea, and I can't stand your idea, that means there's only one way to resolve this: Compromise. I have already proposed two, and you have summarily rejected both. So it's your turn to think one up. I'm listening. How about this. We warn them and give them a 3-6 hour ban time the first time, for some cool down (since most curses are caused by rage (If it isn't rage, just a warning then). Then after that, just bans. We don't NEED a second warning. One's enough. Hopefully this is to your liking. If not, revise it to the way you will.Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:28, October 18, 2012 (UTC) Just a warning the first time for non-rage use? Ok, I like that. Let's stick with that. As for the three hours, that still seems somewhat excessive; ten-twenty minutes is standard for other Wikis, and more than sufficient for cool-down time. But yeah, I think we finally have something going here. I like where this is going. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 19:37, October 18, 2012 (UTC) Awesome! 10-20 minutes..... sorry to fight with with you again, but that seems a little low. 45 minutes? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:41, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :Make it 30 and ya got yerself a deal. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 19:52, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :Well, I guess so. :) We ok now? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:12, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Excellent. Glad we got that all hammered out before this thread got... Too long. Oops. Oh, well, we finally reached an agreement on this particular rule, so at least we achieved something. And I got a chance to sharpen my debating skills! ;-) But, yeah, we're cool. Should we write this particular rule out on the actual rules page? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:17, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Not yet, let's wait until we complete all the rules. I still got a lot of topics I want to cover. Like ones on Editing Rules, (Consecutive "Black Hole" edits, Category adding) Chat rules, User Talk and forum page, etc. Let's settle all this out now. I'm also gonna close this voting session on this part. Let's just get this part over! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:22, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::I have rules to suggest, too. :) For any voting that has ended, I'll add a little box above telling other users that they cannot vote there anymore. Sound okay? ::::::Awesome blossom! Let's do that! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:37, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::;Oh, one last thing for banning on the whole :::::: If they ignore the warning, and it comes to banning, we should only ban them from the place where they committed their crimes. For example, if they swore on Chat after we warned them, they should just be kicked/banned from Chat (and maybe Talk Pages). I'm probably gonna get some opposition for this one, but I just wanted to throw it out there. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:49, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::: Actually, that sounds like a really good idea! Like if they swear on chat, they should only get banned on chat, so they can still edit! Or if it's on talk pages, they can still go on the chat. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::: Fantastic! I was kind of talking about our banning policy as a whole, but ok! The way I see it, if someone was banned for something they did on articles, they can still use the Chat or Talk pages to contact Admins in the event that they feel that their banning was unjustified, that they're ready to come back, or simply want to apologise. People CAN turn over a new leaf, after all. And if all they have to say is verbal abuse, they can get banned from Chat/talk pages as well. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:03, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::: Actually.... I don't think it could apply with sockpuppetry. Since sockpuppetry is making two accounts, and it's usually due to a long period of banning, you get a auto-indef ban for the entire wiki. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:08, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Yeah, good point. So Sock-puppeters are the sole exception. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:13, October 19, 2012 (UTC) ::A day long ban for the first ban sounds okay. I find six hours way to short and that's even shorter than the time I spend at school. Additionally, some people come to the wiki '''just to insert stuff like this into articles, so you guys should be wary of whether it's done on purpose or not. ::The last thing I'm going to bring up for this is inappropriate Usernames. Should they be auto-banned and then told to request a username change from the staff to get de-banned or get a warning first and then banned if the do not comply? ::That is a good idea. Because if it's a username, the admins can't remove it. All we can do is a ban, and hope they will comply. SUPPORT! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:58, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:14, October 17, 2012 (UTC)